On Sun, 2025-04-06 at 09:08 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Sun, 2025-04-06 at 11:11 +0200, trondmy@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Ensure that the NFSv4 error handling code recognises the
> > RPC_TASK_NETUNREACH_FATAL flag, and handles the ENETDOWN and
> > ENETUNREACH
> > errors accordingly.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 9 +++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> > index da97f87ecaa9..f862c862b3a3 100644
> > --- a/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> > +++ b/fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c
> > @@ -671,6 +671,15 @@ nfs4_async_handle_exception(struct rpc_task
> > *task, struct nfs_server *server,
> > struct nfs_client *clp = server->nfs_client;
> > int ret;
> >
> > + if ((task->tk_rpc_status == -ENETDOWN ||
> > + task->tk_rpc_status == -ENETUNREACH) &&
> > + task->tk_flags & RPC_TASK_NETUNREACH_FATAL) {
> > + exception->retry = 0;
> > + exception->recovering = 0;
> > + exception->retry = 0;
>
> Why set exception->retry twice?
Oops. That last one is supposed to be exception->delay = 0
Thanks for noticing!
>
> > + return -EIO;
> > + }
> > +
> > ret = nfs4_do_handle_exception(server, errorcode,
> > exception);
> > if (exception->delay) {
> > int ret2 = nfs4_exception_should_retrans(server,
> > exception);
>
> Other than that, this looks sane.
>
> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
